Seth Borenstein

There’s no doubt about it. It’s been a challenging year for climate science and climate scientists, for journalists, and for the public. A string of legislative and regulatory disappointments coupled with dizzying political spin have left many more confused than ever about the overwhelming scientific consensus of climate change.

It’s been a particularly grim year following the Citizens United decision that ushered in a new era of rampant electoral spending on climate change denial; the U.S. midterm elections produced a Senate filled with climate change skeptics and deniers; a failed climate bill or two, and after the Copenhagen talks failed to produce any real results. In addition, many pundits and analysts are giving us good reason to believe the U.S. won’t see a climate bill for two years, and little reason to believe that real climate progress will be made in Cancun next week. It seems there’s a lot of reason to feel distressed.

Last week marked a year since the so-called Climategate “scandal” sent climate change deniers into an echo chamber frenzy. Bud Ward and John Wihbey aptly note that to even call it “climategate” lends it credence that is undeserved. Yet it is imperative that we try to learn lessons from it. This certainly won’t be the last difficult year for the climate change movement; an increasingly challenging political environment promises more interesting times ahead, both for the science and for the scientists who devote their lives to the subject. In a nutshell, we’ve got our work cut out for us.

New information provided by inside sources to DeSmogBlog raises questions about public statements from NASA when asked by the media about the cost of launching Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR).

The date was January 24, 2008. Four NASA senior brass had just finished delivering a rambling one hour news briefing on their much-maligned Earth sciences program - noteworthy only in that there was no news. No new announcements. No new missions.

Seth Borenstein, the science reporter for Associated Press rose to ask the first question, specifically about why NASA had not launched DSCOVR.

There was a time, Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider said today, when that appeared to be what American journalists were doing: covering up climate change. Schneider was the lead speaker In an opening plenary of the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference, entitled “Covering Climate Change,” and he began by noting that all too recently, U.S. climate coverage had been dense and uncertain. Peer-reviewed papers endorsed by the best scientists in the world were given the same space and credence as the latest one-off report by the apologists for an oil-industry-funded think tank.

Sitting before 300-plus reporters currently working the environment beat, Schneider quickly added, “It's not that bad any more.”

When the Associated Press released its survey of climate scientists—virtually all of whom said “An Inconvenient Truth” faithfully portrayed climate science—an aide to skeptical Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) released a press release headlined “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore's Movie.” Jim Motavalli—editor of “E/the Environmental Magazine”—dug into this exercise in disinformation to sort it all out.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.